I don't know how you solve the problems in your garden. Apparently there are solutions though.
I already explained why you should give it up. Because a drop in demand for guns eventually solves the problem. Just like cigarettes. Just like literally any product.
My solution by definition works if all current law-abiding gun owners self-sacrifice. It works less well if only a handful of people do it, but it still works better than nothing. Those of us who don't own guns have already made the sacrifice so I'm not being hypocritical.
Whereas your solution of greater regulation or higher taxes or insurance or higher fines/penalties or mandatory gun buybacks or whatever all make sense, and I agree with all of them, but they have not, and (IMO) cannot and (IMO) will not pass legislative muster here in the US. It's strange to me that you support all of this -- it would harm you financially, time-wise, legal-risk wise, but does nothing to me as a non-gunowner.
As far as US problems vs. the rest of the world, I don't know either, but it would certainly make sense that gun proliferation is a part of the reason, given that impulse control problems can be more dangerous with guns than without, and we all have impulse control problems. You made the point earlier that Canada has 71% fewer firearms person than the US. I am certain the types of firearm allowed are also more restricted there.
It does beg the question that if the Canadian government banned the weapons you owned, what would you do?
I don't know how you solve the problems in your garden. Apparently there are solutions though.
There are solutions, but I don't care for them. If I am going to shoot a bird or animal, I want it dead, not suffering or slowly dying in a trap or by other means. Coyotes are much more deadly and much more of a challenge with few options apart from shooting. I suppose an argument for using a bow could be used, but I'm not at all proficient in using one.
....will not pass legislative muster here in the US.
I can't offer a solution if legislation won't be made to regulate or control firearm ownership. The idea of banning or voluntary self-sacrifice wouldn't materialize either. On average 710 people die from horse riding, I don't think the suggestion of banning horse riding would work either, much like gun ownership.
....gun proliferation is a part of the reason
I'm not convinced that the very basic argument that gun proliferation is the issue is correct. If it were, then it would seem realistic to expect a greater number of mass shootings in other countries.
It does beg the question that if the Canadian government banned the weapons you owned, what would you do?
Ah, an interesting question. They have already banned many types of guns, not that I'm at all interested in owning an AR-15, I have no use for one. Recently I was going to take up pistol shooting, but Prince Trudeau banned the sale of them, so that knocked that idea on the head. It won't affect gun crime in any way, but does appease his peeps.
The Liberals did try to bring in legislation to ban centrefire rifles etc, which would have included one of mine, but back tracked following the reaction. Had it gone through, then I'd have to see what process they put in place. With us having a well regulated gun control system in place, they know what guns I have and they know what ammunition I have bought, when and where from, so it's not as though I can hide it or deny ownership.
I wouldn't voluntarily give up my guns, because there is no reason for me to do so.
